Connect with us

Conservatism

The left hates liberty, but they love guns!

Published

on

The left hates liberty but they love guns

The Left isn’t anti-gun. Recent articles show they want to be armed while the Pro-liberty right is disarmed.

Sometimes one can see the advantage and sheer entertainment value of the President tweeting something to set off the Authoritarian Socialist Left on some new issue or direction. Were it not such a serious topic, the reaction of the Left to Gun Pride Month would be hilarious. Several cases had them contradict themselves in one publication, with the usual demands for gun confiscation in one instance, while they called for the arming of the Left in another.

The Left is clearly opposed to the cause of Liberty. This is why it’s a mistake to label them as ‘anti-gun’. They love guns, they just don’t want them in the wrong hands.

Setting off the Left with Gun Pride Month

When we started Gun Pride month last year it was in response to the steady drum beat towards gun confiscation arising on the federal, state and local levels. In the beginning, GPM was a small celebration of Liberty. It is now growing by leaps and bounds. The intent was to show that the more than 120 Million gun owners in the country were not going to be collectively punished for the crimes of a few. Nor were we going to give up our common sense human rights knowing the sequence from history has always been Registration, Confiscation, Annihilation.

The point was to use a certain phraseology that shows that Pro-Liberty patriots had become the first – but not the last – targets of the ire of the Liberty Grabber Left. The poetic statement of Martin Niemöller “First they came for the…” is that the Left tends to isolate and oppress certain groups in turn until no one remained to resist their socialist tyranny.

However, something rather interesting took place with the event beginning this year. Several Far-Left publications just happened to run several articles on the subject of guns at the beginning of Gun Pride Month. The subsidiary of NBC that targeted the Liberty of Steven Crowder ran not one, but two articles on the subject. Even more astounding is that these two stories contradicted each other.

Vox calls for gun confiscation while calling for Leftists to arm themselves

As we stated, it’s quite often entertaining when Leftists trip all over themselves in trying to foster their ever contradictory jihad against Liberty. In the first instance, German Lopez fired up the Vox explain-o-mobile, declaring that: Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change thatThere should be a Medicare-for-all or Green New Deal for ending gun violence. Not wanting to be shy when it comes to the destruction of a basic human right, Mr. Lopez declared:

To change the status quo, Democrats should go big. They need to focus on the abundance of guns in the US and develop a suite of policies that directly tackle that issue, from licensing to confiscation to more aggressive bans of certain kinds of firearms (including, perhaps, all semiautomatic weapons or at least some types of handguns).

[Emphasis added]

This was followed up with a rather long and convoluted piece demanding that Left’s suite of candidates for president neglect any concerns for Liberty and push for every kind of draconian measure they can think of against freedom. Primarily because the previous restrictions that were supposed to solve the problem didn’t work as advertised. Never mind that these would run contrary to our nation’s founding documents.

The Left has a fever, and the only prescription is more gun confiscation

The Liberty Grabber Left scrupulously avoids using the ‘C’ word, often dancing a jig on the line over which they openly demand gun confiscation. Never mind that every other Liberty destroying proposal on their part eviscerates the 2nd amendment, much less infringes on a Constitutionally enumerated civil and human right.

No doubt they’ve worn out their copy of Roget’s Thesaurus trying to come up with euphemisms for the word. Everything from banning guns to the ridiculous assertion that they can ‘buy back’ what they have never owned, making an offer we cannot refuse, suffering nuclear annihilation for non-compliance.

The Left doesn’t need a serious crisis to come out against Liberty

It is very important to remember that the Left doesn’t need a serious crisis to make more demands for gun confiscation. They will bring up the subject unconnected with an event that supposedly shows the need for these actions. The invocation of Gun Pride Month being a prime example, there was no tragedy present and yet they felt the need to reiterate their demands for more restrictions on Liberty.

This isn’t about ‘fear’ or ‘protecting the children’ but the overwhelming desire on the part of the Authoritarian Socialist Left to attain political power over the Pro-Liberty Right.

These are people who only pretend to be supportive of individual Liberty. In reality they cannot abide individuals defending that freedom. They never mention this aspect of the 2nd amendment, but something that ‘starts a conversation’ without a serious crisis in the mix lays bare their true intent.

Confiscation contradictions

Oddly enough, the first days of Gun Pride Month saw the moral and intellectual betters of Vox and the New Republic foster the notion that the Left should ‘reclaim guns’ from the Right. The Vox piece contradicted the screed from Mr. Lopez, and had the bonus issue of an ideological contradiction right in the title: I’m a left-wing anarchist. It’s time to reclaim guns from the right.

Of course the phrase ‘Left-wing anarchist’ is a contradiction in terms dictionary definitions of those words, akin to referring to an object being composed of matter and anti-matter, but we digress. Even worse was the use of the phrase ‘reclaim guns from the right’ which could have two meanings, a rhetorical reclaiming or a hidden meaning that the Left should take all the guns from the right and ‘reclaim’ them as their own.

There is a prevailing narrative that pegs guns and armed self-defense exclusively to Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos. It maintains that those on the left want to take away everyone’s guns and swathe the entire country in bubble wrap.

This piece was followed up by one in the New Republic also calling for a contradiction against the confiscation narrative: Antifa Is Arming Itself Against a Trump Crackdown.  That screed almost makes the Vox piece look rational by comparison, complete with incomprehensible Leftist ranting to nonsensical word salad labeling. Both of these pieces had two implications, with one being rather sinister in intent. They both negate the whole point of the Left’s supposed concerns about guns while raising the possibility that they only want the Left to be armed.

Negating the gun confiscation agenda

To hear the left talk about it, guns have to be confiscated because that is the only way we can all be safe. One of the signs at the Marx of Our Lives event stated that ‘If nobody had a gun, nobody would need a gun!’. Never mind that would be an impossibility, the idea from the Liberty Grabbers is that we must take every one of the 400 – 600 million guns from more than 120 million innocent gun owners so that these somehow cannot be used to hurt anyone. Forget about the fact that left to their own devices, these millions of guns would just sit around and rust. To the Left, their mere existence is enough of a threat to warrant immediate and full confiscation.

These two articles along with many others admonishing the Left to arm themselves signifies that they don’t really consider all of those guns to be a threat. It also negates the Left’s gun confiscation agenda because those pieces admit that guns change the social dynamic from one of force to one of reason as pointed out in the classic essay: why the gun is civilization.

“Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” – Mao Zedong

Conclusion

Consider the words of Mao Zedong and other Leftists in that they love to have guns in their hands, but not in those that would ‘resist’ their oppression. That is the main implication of those articles imploring the Left to grab guns, aside from the fact that it destroys the whole rationale for their gun confiscation agenda. It does however shed new light on many of the licensing schemes and push for Gun Confiscation SWATing legislation. These measures place control of the use of force in the hands of the national Socialist-Left.

This isn’t about ‘gun safety’ or fear of ‘military style’ weapons. This is about disempowering their opposition, wanting their side to have a monopoly on the use of force. That is the point of those screeds encouraging Leftists to grab for the guns. They hate the Liberty that those weapons represent in someone else’s hands.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Published

on

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to kill a resolution to pursue impeachment against President Trump. The vote followed a resolution to condemn Trump following his tweets that enraged the left. The House got to vote on impeachment and this time 95 members all voted against killing the resolution, all 95 members in this 322-95 vote were Democrats. Not among them was Justin Amash who actually called for impeachment back in May in a 13 tweet thread.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.” Justin Amash May 20th

If you recall these tweet came weeks before he decided to name a single of the several instances of impeachable activity, instead reverting to vague tweets about the nature of impeachment. Yet since May 18th, it has become increasingly obvious Justin Amash has no intentions on following through on his calls to impeachment. As a Representative in the US Congress, he has the power only 435 people in the country have. If he feels that it is his duty to pursue impeachment, which is a view he pontificated on Twitter, then anything short of bringing forward impeachment on the specific charges he eventually laid out is grandstanding. With so few Congressmen having read the Mueller Report, his words, Democrats would defer to him on this issue if he would only do what he said he would do. But Justin Amash was only grandstanding on impeachment. Otherwise why would he have voted to kill a resolution on pursuing impeachment, the very thing he called for?

What has Justin Amash done since May 18th?

He voted for a resolution condemning Trump, but the real answer is, he’s taken some time to brand himself. After support in his own district plummeted, on July 4th, he declared his independence from the Republican Party in an op ed in the Washington Post. Seeing as Independence Day is about America’s history not a day for politicians to politicize for their own endgame, this is perhaps the most egotistical way do just that. Maybe doing it on 9/11 is worse. As he all but comes out of the closet on a 2020 Libertarian or Independent Presidential Run, Justin Amash looks to rebrand Libertarianism, removing the populism Rand Paul embraced. Daniel McCarthy at Spectator wrote a really good piece on Amash illustrating this point.

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

In not even fighting for the very thing he parted from the Republicans over, Trump, he has already lost. His district has likely turned on him and his best political prospect is being a below average 3rd party candidate. All he’s left with politically are his principles which his grandstanding calls into question.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because she’s not a wartime leader

Published

on

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because shes not a wartime leader

Some leaders are meant to bring people together. Others are made to get from one point in an organization’s development to the next stage. On occasion, an organization needs to go to war, and that’s what Planned Parenthood believes it needs to do right now. Their former president, Dr. Leana Wen, believes she is a combination of the first two types of leader – bringing people together and transitioning Planned Parenthood. She believes this is why she was pushed out the door by the board.

They want to go to war and Wen is not a wartime leader.

This may sound like a bad thing for pro-life organizations as their top nemesis is clearly positioning to be more of a political organization willing to play dirty and force the issue of abortion on as many people as possible. But an astute examination of the way things are today reveals one truth: America is polarized, so it’s better to go to fight ideology versus ideology rather than attack an organization trying to build bridges.

It may have been difficult for Wen to truly coax moderate pro-lifers, liberty-minded ant-government folks, and people on the fence on the abortion issue, but she was laying the groundwork for such things. This is why I’m glad to see her go. I know the threat of a proper radical progressive who hates pro-lifers to the core is worrisome to some, including our top pro-life writer. But the writing is on the wall: war is on. Planned Parenthood is looking for a battle-hardened fighter to shame people in Alabama, scare people in Georgia, and celebrate progressives in New York. They want someone who will push the feminine healthcare aspect of Planned Parenthood to the backburner and focus solely on advancing pro-abortion laws and planting more abortion clinics around the country.

We’re not just fighting for the lives of preborn babies, though that is plenty of incentive to fight. But we’re also fighting for the soul of the nation. For the pro-life, conservative, and Judeo-Christian worldviews to regain prominence in America, it’s important that we stake our claim to unambiguous differences between our beliefs and their’s. Some will tell me we need more unity, but the only unity that’s possible in today’s polarized society is if the left gets their way and enough on the right accept it. The left will not accept our perspectives. Therefore, we must force the issue. We must get into an ideological war. Most importantly, we need to put our truths up against their best lies.

The best lies they tell are that abortion is a right, pre-born babies aren’t people, and killing the “lump of cells” in the mother is somehow considered healthcare.

In an article posted today by the NY Times, Wen explains why she was ousted and gives hints about the direction Planned Parenthood wants to go without her:

With high-quality, affordable health care out of reach for so many, Planned Parenthood has a duty to maximize its reach. I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies, and to enhance critically-needed services like mental health and addiction treatment.

But the team that I brought in, experts in public health and health policy, faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goalsas mission creep. There was even more criticism as we worked to change the perception that Planned Parenthood was just a progressive political entity to show that it was first and foremost a mainstream health care organization.

Perhaps the greatest area of tension was over our work to be inclusive of those with nuanced views about abortion. I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions. I engaged those who identify as being pro-life, but who support safe, legal abortion access because they don’t want women to die from back-alley abortions. I even worked with people who oppose abortion but support Planned Parenthood because of the preventive services we provide — we share the desire to reduce the need for abortion through sex education and birth control.

The Planned Parenthood of the near future is one that doesn’t worry about reproductive health or the safety of babies. They simply want more abortions. There’s an evil at the heart of the organization that is actually darker than we’ve seen in the past, if that can be imagined. We need to fight this darkness, and Wen was in the way trying to make Planned Parenthood inclusive and acceptable. That went against their new goal. They want the issue forced.

Our truths are able to shine brightest when the opposition is at its darkest. A kindler, gentler, inclusive agenda isn’t as dark as Planned Parenthood’s desired goal of advancing as many abortions as possible. I’m glad to see Wen removed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because she’s a conservative

Published

on

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because shes a conservative

It’s okay to be “woke” if you’re participating in Miss World America. Several contestants have expressed radical political, cultural, and religious views that would be considered offensive to many conservatives, including support for dismemberment of preborn children, anti-law-enforcement sentiments, and one instance of clear racism against Caucasians. But it was the outspoken conservative beauty queen, Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her title and forced to disassociate herself from the competition immediately.

She posted her conversation with Miss World America Michigan state director Laurie DeJack as well as the email correspondence with the organization regarding her ousting:

Some news outlets are reporting the ousting had to do with her controversial response to being asked to “try a hijab” in 2018, but the text messages do not reflect that. It could have been cited during a phone conversation, which apparently happened in the midst of the text conversation.

But the directly attributed reason was a Tweet in which Zhu addressed an unknown person or group who was apparently complaining about African-American deaths. In response, she noted that black-on-black violence is the most prevalent circumstance in African-American homicides.

She worded it a bit differently:

“Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”

Zhu quote-Tweeted a post sent to Vice President Pence:

Yes, her post was controversial. Was it racist? No, not in context. As she noted in her letter to the pageant, she was referring to statistical facts. Is that grounds for removal? Perhaps it is… as long as they’re being consistent. But Zhu isn’t the only contestant posting very controversial statements on social media. As of now, there seems to be no others who have indicated they were removed for similar reasons even though some have social media posts that should be considered even worse relative to the rules of decorum set forth by the pageant. Of course, the posts that should be considered worse than Zhu’s are generally progressive.

It’s a shame that Zhu had her title and future participation banned, but she has an opportunity to highlight the anti-conservative bias in such organizations. She may not be competing, but she can be even more influential now within the conservative movement than she was before. She’s currently studying political science. Maybe that will translate into a life in politics.

If Miss World America were fair, they’d strip crowns from several of the contestants over their controversial social media posts. But they won’t. They located the lone controversial conservative in the group. They’ll only remove MAGA deplorable Kathy Zhu.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending